Skip to content
Name: People v. Henderson
Case #: C083153
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/13/2018
Summary

Trial court had discretionary authority to include expenses to install a residential security system in restitution order even though defendant was not convicted of a violent felony. Henderson pleaded no contest to charges of stalking, vandalism, and disobeying a court order and was sentenced to state prison. The victims (a mother and daughter) paid nearly $5,800 to install a residential security system following Henderson’s crimes. At the restitution hearing, he argued that section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J) limits restitution for such costs to defendants who have been convicted of a violent felony (none of his offenses were violent felonies). The trial court disagreed and included the residential security system expenses in the restitution order. The defendant appealed. Held: Affirmed. Subject to certain exceptions, section 1202.4, subdivision (f) provides that in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of a defendant’s conduct, the court must require the defendant make restitution to the victim. Subdivision (f)(3) lists various economic losses that may be included in a restitution order but expressly states that economic losses are not limited to the enumerated list. Subdivision (f)(3)(J) provides that expenses to install or increase security as a result of a violent felony constitute an economic loss. However, the statute does not expressly preclude restitution for such installation under other circumstances. As a result, a trial court has authority to order restitution when a victim incurs the economic loss of installing a security system as a direct result of a defendant’s conduct, regardless of the crime of conviction. The court disagreed with People v. Salas (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 736, which determined that the Legislature intended that residential security expenses are recoverable through restitution orders only when they are incurred related to a violent felony. [Editor’s Note: The issue presented in this case is pending in the California Supreme Court in People v. Calavano (May 4, 2017, H042950) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 8/9/2017 (S242474) [Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering defendant to pay restitution to cover the cost of the victim’s increased residential security measures, although defendant was not convicted of committing a violent felony? (See Pen. Code, § 1202.4(f)(3)(J).).]

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C083153.PDF